General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMonsanto Is Suing California for Trying to Inform People That Roundup Causes Cancer
http://www.alternet.org/environment/monsanto-suing-california-trying-inform-people-roundup-causes-cancerThe biotech giant would prefer it if people didnt know that glyphosate, the main ingredient in its bestselling weedkiller Roundup, is a probable carcinogen.
Once again, Monsanto is trying to take away our right to know, this time about carcinogenic chemicals used in household products and places all around us. In January, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against the state of California for its intent to list glyphosate, the main chemical used in Monsantos flagship Roundup herbicide, under California's Proposition 65, a law that mandates notification and labeling of all chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and prohibits their discharge into drinking waters of the state.
Enacted by California voters via ballot initiative in 1986, Prop 65 prohibits any business from knowingly or intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving a clear and reasonable warning, and the discharge of such chemical into a source of drinking water is prohibited. The State relies on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) the worlds leading authority on cancer as the basis for listing chemicals that are known or probable carcinogens under Prop 65. In 2015, IARC concluded, by a unanimous decision, that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic.
___________________________________
And once the TPP is in place Monsanto won't have to go to the trouble of suing in tax payer funded courts. They can just go to the secret cabal of their Corporate buddies and get a ruling in their favor. Thank You Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Terrific job screwing the American People
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)that gov't studies re health effects of chemicals cuts into expected future profits?
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)And with regards to Hillary Clinton:
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Otherwise this would be like some states requiring doctors to tell patients that abortion is linked to breast cancer, even though there is no evidence for such a link.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)probable carcinogenic were and are immature. Not to mention it means that California's attempt at labeling it as such would be misinformation.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)LOL
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Ideally there would be independent studies with no bias evident in those who provide funding. But that doesn't happen often, and its not like Monsanto-funded studies are contradicting a scientific consensus, there is no consensus at this time.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)much less peer-reviewed, which they were not.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)So instead I recommend reading this article which includes references to many studies:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roundup-and-risk-assessment
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)regardless, personally I don't need a study to tell me a chemical that is strong enough to kill weeds (and it takes a lot to kill them) is not something you want to ingest your body, is likely to cause cancer and other ill effects over long period of consumption etc.
Mosanto is the company that had been claiming for decades that their pesticide DDT was perfectly safe for human consumption, until it was banned by the EPA in 1970. This is the company that claimed Agent Orange was perfectly safe and harmless to humans. Monsanto has absolutely zero credibility and should not be in business imo.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Your mind is closed to all evidence that contradicts it, you exist in your own bubble.
Also, DDT was first synthesized in 1874, Monsanto was founded in 1901 and didn't start making DDT until 1940, as one of many manufacturers. If you can't even get basic facts about things like this right, why should we trust anything else you post?
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)they are proven liars and have absolutely no credibility to speak about anything.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Human health, in fact there little to no evidence that it is carcinegenic as well.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)From their website:
In 1972, EPA issued a cancellation order for DDT based on its adverse environmental effects, such as those to wildlife, as well as its potential human health risks. Since then, studies have continued, and a relationship between DDT exposure and reproductive effects in humans is suspected, based on studies in animals. In addition, some animals exposed to DDT in studies developed liver tumors. As a result, today, DDT is classified as a probable human carcinogen by U.S. and international authorities.
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Poor Monsanto? ever so wronged?
The onus is on Monsanto to prove they aren't killing people
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Seriously?
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Do we have to go through this over and over and over again, with toxins, to find out 10 years, 20 years later, that it's causing birth defects or poisoning farm workers or killing bees?
How can you be an apologist for this LACK OF CAUTION?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Also, and this is important, but in 40 years there has not been a demonstrated link between glyphosate and cancer.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)The person who gets cancer or ONLY for Monsanto?
How do they determine the cost of people with cancer? Or don't they?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Also the benefits include using a less dangerous herbicide than the alternatives available, which increases yield of crops and reduces health risks to humans.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)The State relies on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) the worlds leading authority on cancer as the basis for listing chemicals that are known or probable carcinogens under Prop 65. In 2015, IARC concluded, by a unanimous decision, that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Stop justifying the criminal actions and products of this war criminal, crimes against humanity criminal and their criminal owners.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Seriously, this is getting ridiculous, outside of assertions that are false, what do you have?
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)womanofthehills
(8,584 posts)Co-Formulants in Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Disrupt Aromatase Activity in Human Cells below Toxic Levels.
Pesticide formulations contain declared active ingredients and co-formulants presented as inert and confidential compounds. We tested the endocrine disruption of co-formulants in six glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH), the most used pesticides worldwide. All co-formulants and formulations were comparably cytotoxic well below the agricultural dilution of 1% (18-2000 times for co-formulants, 8-141 times for formulations), and not the declared active ingredient glyphosate (G) alone. The endocrine-disrupting effects of all these compounds were measured on aromatase activity, a key enzyme in the balance of sex hormones, below the toxicity threshold. Aromatase activity was decreased both by the co-formulants alone (polyethoxylated tallow amine-POEA and alkyl polyglucoside-APG) and by the formulations, from concentrations 800 times lower than the agricultural dilutions; while G exerted an effect only at 1/3 of the agricultural dilution. It was demonstrated for the first time that endocrine disruption by GBH could not only be due to the declared active ingredient but also to co-formulants. These results could explain numerous in vivo results with GBHs not seen with G alone; moreover, they challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value for GBHs exposures, currently calculated from toxicity tests of the declared active ingredient alone.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)womanofthehills
(8,584 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I believe it would be prudent to wait for peer review on this study before calling it definitive.
NickB79
(19,113 posts)When IARC comes to a determination of what may cause cancer, it combs through existing literature (which does raise the risk of cherry-picking studies that satisfy your point of view). But its assessing the hazard of a chemical. A hazard assessment simply states that a certain chemical, environmental element or behavior is somehow related to cancer. Itll then note whether something is, is probable or is possible, or isnt, so far as we know.
What a hazard evaluation does not tell you is how likely you are to get cancer. Thats the domain of a risk assessment, which will use the same wordsis, probable and possiblebut in a different way. Heres a very informative video explainer by Andrew Maynard, director of the Risk Innovation Lab at Arizona State University, that covers how IARC makes its hazard assessments:
See also: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/glyphosate-whats-the-lowdown.html
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)We must demonize a relatively safe herbicide, so we can go back to using more toxic ones. And don't you dare speak of the dangers of "organic approved" herbicides! Those are all safe as water. Well, at least as safe as Flint water.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Which I doubt is possible. Stuffs been around for 40 years so I am surprised this is still a thing.
Oddly, many of those folks work very hard to live in denial re: the toxicity of "natural herbicides."
Rex
(65,616 posts)DU seems to be toxic enough as it is. Keep up the good fight.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I can't be quiet while that happens.
pbmus
(12,418 posts)You seem to know more about Monsanto than anyone on this blog
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Roundup and glyphosate are not required to grow any crops,
Glyphosate is toxic to the environment, its costs are high and benefits are dubious at best.
Many countries have banned it and are doing fine without it. And many others require labeling.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)maybe not stupid but ignorant of the facts.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I appreciate the confession.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Farmers used DDT for decades until it was banned
doesn't make them stupid, they simply didn't know what they were doing was dangerous to humans and the environment.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)But nice try. Glyphosate is not DDT, by the way.
Yes, you should be ashamed to spread ignorance based fear mongering while demonizing farmers. The gall you show is astounding.
PS:
http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=309&Itemid=263
womanofthehills
(8,584 posts)What are the implications of the interaction between DDT and estrogen receptors in the body?
Abstract
The organochlorine pesticide, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), which is fat-soluble and persistent in the body and environment, has estrogenic activity. There has been an apparent association with breast cancer, which has implicated DDT binding with estrogen receptors (ERs). The mechanism of DDT-ER interaction at target sites is similar to estrogen, with protein synthesis resulting in an estrogenic response. Other than the female reproductive sites, DDT could possibly bind to ERs present in other body systems. The recent discovery of a beta receptor has introduced a new understanding of estrogen and DDT binding. An understanding of the molecular biology of the DDT-ER interaction in breast tissue could possibly explain the risk of breast cancer. Estrogen and other estrogenic compounds compete with DDT by their estrogenic potential. DDT-ER interaction in the body has wider implications in terms of its genotoxic potential and role in carcinogenesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10791702
Association of DDT and heptachlor epoxide in human blood with diabetic nephropathy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25822320
pbmus
(12,418 posts)I am relatively healthy after getting poisoned by agent orange...which I was told that stuff is relatively safe..
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)In that time there has not been a demonstrated link between glyphosate and cancer.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)You yourself admit it is not proven safe, and there are well attested doubts about safety, to say the least. Why was the health and safety of all those millions of people put at risk when there is no consensus that it is even safe?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)No evidence of a link means no evidence of a link, you can say its safe insofar as the evidence points to it not being a risk factor for cancer. This is as close to "proven safe" you are ever going to get in a scientific context.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)It is as far as you can get from "safe".
You said up there: "The issue is that the studies are contradictory". And that is not "no evidence".
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I have a question, what evidence would you require to be assured that glyphosate is safe?
scscholar
(2,902 posts)Can't you just admit you're wrong?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Honestly, when it comes to the neo-luddite, anti-science crowd, I shouldn't give the benefit of the doubt, its not just ignorance, but either willful ignorance or dishonestly that drives them.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)denied any link between cigarettes an cancer?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You are pushing a rather uncouth tactic of the organic industry. Unfortunately, the opposite is more true.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)AND all industries that now rely on "independent" studies spen millions if not billions on those very same "independent" research facilities, be they universities or private studies.
Even the National Institute of Health admits "The National Cancer Institute (NCI) works closely with private sector partners, including the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, in its efforts to develop approaches and technologies to prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer."
Hand in glove you might say.
I put my trust in the World Health Organization.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Name one legitimate study that actually connects glyphosate to cancer.
BTW, "trusted sources"'don't link to Seralini as evidence.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)And I STRONGLY believe a corporation should have NO ability to sue a sovereign state for relying on a trusted organizations findings.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Wow.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)legit enough!
This is tiresome...are you a paid consultant for GMO's?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)If you can't show us the evidence, then there might be problems with your source. Where are the legit studies?
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Oh, and referencing the WHO report without being able to show what studies justify it brings us back to a starting point.
You clearly have a belief, but you have spent no time working to see if the belief is justified by science. It's time for you to challenge yourself.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)So therefore the tide has turned. You cannot link to any studies that state glyphosates are possible carcinogens
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)A Google search shows nothing. The WHO report in the Lancet does not show what studies justify the stance. Now, either put up, or admit that you are mistaken. This is not hard stuff.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)Nothing will satisfy you, sorry, I tried.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I don't think you can, and that's the real problem. You are on the wrong side of science and reality.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)Not ALL anti GMO activists are practicing tobacco science
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)GMOs are seeds developed using GE technology. The demonization of this technology is despicable to the core. This demonization is aimed at increasing sales of "organic" and "non-GMO" foods, a marketing tactic aimed at increasing corporate profits, and nothing more.
womanofthehills
(8,584 posts)Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/
A recent study on glyphosate exposure in carnivorous fish revealed remarkable adverse effects throughout the digestive system (Senapati et al., 2009). The activity of protease, lipase, and amylase were all decreased in the esophagus, stomach, and intestine of these fish following exposure to glyphosate. The authors also observed disruption of mucosal folds and disarray of microvilli structure in the intestinal wall, along with an exaggerated secretion of mucin throughout the alimentary tract. These features are highly reminiscent of celiac disease. Gluten peptides in wheat are hydrophobic and therefore resistant to degradation by gastric, pancreatic and intestinal proteases (Hershko & Patz, 2008). Thus, the evidence from this effect on fish suggests that glyphosate may interfere with the breakdown of complex proteins in the human stomach, leaving larger fragments of wheat in the human gut that will then trigger an autoimmune response, leading to the defects in the lining of the small intestine that are characteristic of these fish exposed to glyphosate and of celiac patients. As illustrated in Figure 1, the usage of glyphosate on wheat in the U.S. has risen sharply in the last decade, in step with the sharp rise in the incidence of Celiac disease. We explain the reasons for increased application of glyphosate to wheat in Section 13.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Even before I googled the study, the issue with gyphosate interfering with mucus membranes in fish seemed more likely to be caused by chemical surfactants additives. They have been known, for a long time, to break down proteins and lipids, in fact, they are sold for just that purpose, chemicals that are sufactants are present mostly in soap and toothpaste.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Do,you realize that she works with the scam artist Jeffrey Smith. She knows nothing about biology and chemistry. All her "expertise" is in computers.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...for humanity, not so much.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)just perceived harm to potential profits
Thanks Hillary and Obama. And that why Hillary people are trying to spin this corporate horror.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The Dark Age of Money
by JAMES C. KENNEDY
CounterPunch Oct. 24, 2012
EXCERPT...
Monetary Fascism was created and propagated through the Chicago School of Economics. Milton Friedmans collective works constitute the foundation of Monetary Fascism. Knowing that the term Fascism was universally unpopular; Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics masquerade these works as Capitalism and Free Market economics.
SNIP...
The fundamental difference between Adam Smiths free market capitalism and Friedmans free market capitalism is that Friedmans is a hyper extractive model, the kind that creates and maintains Third-World-Countries and Banana-Republics, without geo-political borders.
If you say that this is nothing new, you miss the point. Friedman does not differentiate between some third world country and his own. The ultimate difference is that Friedman has created a model that sanctions and promotes the exploitation of his own country, in fact every country, for the benefit of the investor, money the uber-wealthy. He dressed up this noxious ideology as free market capitalism and then convinced most of the world to embrace it as their economic salvation.
SNIP...
Monetary Fascism, as conceived by Friedman, uses the powers of the state to put the interest of money and the financial class above and beyond all other forms of industry (and other stake holders) and the state itself.
SNIP...
Money has become the state and the traditional state is forced to serve moneys interests. Everywhere the Financial Class is openly lording over sovereign nations. Ireland, Greece and Spain are subject to ultimatums and remember Hank Paulsons $700 billion extortion from the U.S. Congress. The $700 billion was just the wedge. Thanks to unlimited access to the Discount Window, Quantitative Easing and other taxpayer funded debt-swap bailouts the total transfers to the financial industry exceeded $16 trillion as of July 2010 according to a Federal Reserve Audit. All of this was dumped on the taxpayer and it is still growing.
CONTINUED...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/24/the-dark-age-of-money/
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Missed this one. TX
AxionExcel
(755 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Do you really think it's ethical to post such inaccurate, fear mongering memes?
By the way, it's not safe to breathe water. Hmmm.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Can you source this photo? Or is it another anti-GMO set up prop? I'll be waiting.
PS:
http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/08/how-much-glyphosate-is-sprayed-on-our-crops/
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)the purpose of the respirator is to prevent inhaling the Roundup.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it.
Somehow, your lack of knowledge, willingness to use bad propaganda, and demeaning tone toward farmers really makes me think you don't know much about ag. I could be wrong, but that is unlikely, considering the content of you posts.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Wearing full body gear and face protection is a rather common method of applying Roundup.
OSHA recommends wearing full PPE (protective gear) when applying Roundup on large or commercial scale.
https://www.google.com/search?q=spraying+roundup&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq8K29y6XLAhUP0mMKHcDdAmAQ_AUIBygB&biw=1097&bih=517#imgrc=YsZ6Ik4GF79AXM%3A
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Nice try. Either put up or admit reality. The rest of us already know the reality.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Maybe you should write Google a letter about it.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thanks for the confession.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)That is how Roundup is applied, with full protective gear on. Are you claiming otherwise?
I suggest you write a letter to OSHA and tell them they are wrong.
Basic common sense should tell you the application of any synthetic industrial chemicals requires wearing full protective gear. You don't have to be a scientist to know that.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)If you know anything about organic approved herbicides, you know that many of those photos are of people administering those.
http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/08/how-much-glyphosate-is-sprayed-on-our-crops/
PS: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Material safety data sheet downloaded from Monsanto website.
You sure you want this crap on your food?
--------------------------------------------
Roundup Ultra2® Liquid Herbicide
Solution
AGRICULTURAL and INDUSTRIAL
CAUTION POISON
WARNING - EYE AND SKIN IRRITANT
REGISTRATION NO. 28486 PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ACT
GUARANTEE: Glyphosate, 540 grams acid equivalent per litre, present as potassium salt.
Water Soluble Herbicide for non-selective weed control
PRECAUTIONS
KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.
HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED.
HARMFUL IF INHALED.
CAUSES EYE AND SKIN IRRITATION.
Avoid contact with eyes, skin or clothing.
Avoid inhaling spray mist.
Wear a long-sleeved shirt and long pants during mixing, loading, application, clean-up and
repair. In addition, wear goggles or a face shield and chemical-resistant gloves during mixing
and loading, clean-up and repair.
Do not enter treated field within 12 hours of application.
If this pest control product is to be used on a commodity that may be exported to the U.S. and
you require information on acceptable residue levels in the U.S., visit CropLife Canadas website
FIRST AID
If swallowed: Call a poison control centre or doctor immediately for treatment advice. Do not
induce vomiting unless told to do so by a poison control centre or doctor. Do not give any liquid
to the person. Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person.
If on skin or clothing: Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin immediately with plenty of
water for 1520 minutes. Call a poison control centre or doctor for treatment advice.
If inhaled: Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then
give artificial respiration, preferably by mouth-to-mouth, if possible. Call a poison control centre
or doctor for further treatment advice.
If in eyes: Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 1520 minutes. Remove
contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. Call a poison
control centre or doctor for treatment advice.
Take container, label or product name and Pest Control Product Registration Number with you
when seeking medical attention.
http://roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/WMAX%20label%20EN%202015.pdf
http://roundup.ca/en/labels-msds
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You apparently prefer more toxic stuff on your food, including organic herbicides. Do you know anything about chemistry? Of course you don't. If you did, you would understand the basic concept that the dose makes the poison.
You don't. And the fact that you don't understand that tells all.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)if even Monsanto says their product is dangerous to inhale or swallow,
how could anyone in their right mind claim it to be safe?
http://roundup.ca/_uploads/documents/WMAX%20label%20EN%202015.pdf
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Your lack of understanding is bizarre.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)I suggest you write a letter to Monsanto to inform them their warning labels are wrong.
As an expert in all things you know better than they do.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The willingness to pretend is despicable.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Now, do you know why all companies make liudicrously careful warnings about their products?
Oh, you didn't?
Now that is funny.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Bill O'Reilly would be proud.
Response to gyroscope (Reply #99)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #100)
Post removed
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)unless the food was sprayed with Roundup and/or other manufactured chemicals.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Less safe than "natural" chemicals.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)they are not natural.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)do you have any actual points relevant to the discussion?
womanofthehills
(8,584 posts)Definitely a sign of the personality disordered
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)ananda
(28,783 posts)... pure evil once again.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Faux pas
(14,582 posts)dealing with the deregulated states. Too bad.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Faux pas
(14,582 posts)the religion of the right wingers. All the state owned by the right will never have anything science based. Pretty sickening and really sad.
AxionExcel
(755 posts)WARNING: Do not read this Journal report while drinking glyphosate-infested beer, or using glyphosate-tainted tampons.
Scientists issue new warning about glyphosate risks
Published: 17 February 2016
In response to changing GBH use patterns and advances in scientific understanding of their potential hazards*, we have produced a Statement of Concern drawing on emerging science relevant to the safety of GBHs
http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0
* ...The World Health Organizations International Agency for Research on Cancer recently concluded that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans.
robertgodardfromnj
(67 posts)The GOP's dream for this country. Just sickening.